Abstract
Parental participation is a crucial component of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. When developing students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), school-based teams must place a high priority on involving students’ parents in a collaborative effort to develop their children’s educational programs and determine their placements. In this article, we examine Doug C. v. Hawaii Department of Education, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the central role of parents in the IEP decision-making process. This column outlines the facts of this case and discusses implications of this decision for school district personnel and IEP team members.
The most basic of all the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004) is that parents are full and equal participants with the school district personnel in the development of their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). In fact, parental participation is central in all decisions regarding the child’s program and placement, and when full and equal parent participation is abridged or denied, a denial of a student’s right to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) will most likely be found (Bateman, 2011).
The U.S. Congress emphasized the central role of parents in IEP development and the provision of an appropriate education from the outset in the findings and purposes provision of the IDEA: Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by—strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families . . . have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home. (20 U.S.C. § 1400[c][5][B])
Specifically, regulations to the IDEA require that school district personnel ensure full and equal parental participation by (a) providing adequate notice of the meetings; (b) scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed upon time and place; (c) informing the parents of the purpose, time, and place of the meetings and who will attend by district request; and (d) informing the parents of their right to bring others of their choice to the meeting (IDEA Regulations, 2006).
Due-process hearings and court cases, including cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, have confirmed the critical importance of meaningful parental involvement in IEP meetings. On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the importance of parental involvement in IEP development. The decision in Doug C. v. State of Hawaii Board of Education (2013; see Note 1) was heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This ruling is law in the Ninth Circuit, which includes the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah. Because this was a very strong decision and the U.S. Circuit Courts are only one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, it is likely that this case will have persuasive authority with other district and circuit courts. This column examines the findings in this case and discusses its implications for children and youth with disabilities and their parents, teachers, and members of their IEP team.
Facts of the Case
Doug C. was the father of Spencer C., an 18-year-old student with autism. Spencer had been placed in a private special education facility in accordance with his IEP since he was in the fifth grade. Spencer’s annual IEP meeting was held on November 9, 2010, without the presence of his father, despite the fact that Doug C. had requested that the IEP meeting not be held unless he was present.
School personnel had proposed holding the IEP meeting in late October but Doug C. was unable to attend. The school district then proposed an early meeting in November, which Doug C. could not attend; then finally, a November 9 date was set for the IEP meeting. On the morning of the IEP meeting, however, Doug C. requested that the IEP meeting be rescheduled because he was sick. To ensure that the meeting took place before the annual review deadline of November 13, school personnel proposed a meeting either on November 10 or 11 when staff were available. Doug C. indicated his willingness to participate but could not definitely commit because of his illness. The special education coordinator suggested that Doug C. could participate in the meeting via the phone or the Internet. In response, Doug C. indicated that he wanted to be physically present and that he might not feel well enough to participate in a meaningful manner on those days.
The special education coordinator decided to proceed with the November 9 meeting even though Doug C. would not be in attendance. The coordinator made this decision because (a) three earlier efforts at holding the IEP meeting had failed, (b) school personnel were unable to rearrange their own schedules to meet on the days requested by Doug C., and (c) the annual IEP would soon be overdue. The annual review meeting, therefore, took place without Doug C. and also without a teacher or staff member from Spencer’s private school. At the meeting, the IEP was reviewed and Spencer’s placement was changed from the private school to a workplace readiness program at a high school. The district sent the new IEP to Spencer’s parents for review and scheduled a follow-up meeting on December 7. During the follow-up IEP meeting, the team reviewed the completed IEP. Doug C. rejected the IEP because he had not participated in its development. Despite his disagreement with the IEP, no changes were made to the document.
The day before the IEP review, Doug C. filed for a due-process hearing. He also removed Spencer from the high school and placed him back at the private school at his own expense. At the due-process hearing, Doug C. alleged that the school district’s failure to ensure his participation in the IEP meeting had resulted in denial of FAPE for his son. The hearing officer disagreed, ruling that the district had afforded Doug C. the opportunity to participate and that his absence from the meeting did not constitute denial of FAPE. Doug C. filed an appeal with U.S. Federal District Court for Hawaii. The district court upheld the ruling of the due-process hearing officer, thus finding for the school district. Doug C. then filed an appeal with the U.S Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals Ruling
On June 13, 2013, the Circuit Court issued a ruling in which it reversed the decision of the lower court, thus ruling in favor of Doug C. The Circuit Court also remanded the case back to the lower court to determine whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement of Spencer’s cost at the private school. In the opinion, the court noted that school district’s efforts to include the parent in the IEP meeting were not sufficient. Additionally, the special education coordinator had denied the parent’s request to reschedule the meeting because the IEP review deadline had almost expired, which would result in failing to meet the IEP review deadline and in Spencer’s special education services lapsing. The court found that this action was inappropriate because parental participation should have taken priority over strict adherence to any review timelines. The appellate court stated that there is nothing in the IDEA that gives school district personnel the authority to stop providing services to a student even if his or her annual IEP review was overdue. The school district had also argued that Doug C.’s cancellations and attempts to reschedule had disrupted the school-based IEP team members’ schedules; therefore, the meeting needed to be held without Doug C.’s presence. The appellate court curtly rejected this argument, writing, “The attendance of Doug C., Spencer’s parent, must take priority over other members’ attendance” (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013, p. 1048).
The court also dismissed the department’s arguments that the follow-up IEP meeting involving Doug C. resolved the potential violation of failure to include the parent in the original IEP review. Specifically, the court held that when a school district violates the IDEA by developing a new IEP without the participation of the child’s parents, merely including a parent in a follow-up meeting is not enough to satisfy the requirements of the law because the IDEA requires parental involvement in the “creation process” (Doug C. v. Hawaii, 2013, p. 1048).
Implications for School Districts and Special Educators
School districts have an affirmative duty to ensure that parents are meaningfully involved in IEP development. The appellate court’s ruling in Doug C. reaffirmed the central role of parents in the IEP decision-making process and, thus, the importance of this duty. The decision also highlighted the seriousness of the error school districts make when they exclude a student’s parents from the IEP development process. As Bateman (2011) has aptly noted, “few, if any, of IDEA’s procedural rights are more vigorously protected by courts” (Bateman, 2011, p. 93).
The Doug C. opinion cited the language from an earlier ruling in W.G. v. Board of Trustees Target Range School District (1992) in commenting on the importance of parental involvement: “Procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, clearly result in the denial of FAPE” (p. 1484). The court also cited its ruling in Amanda J. v. Clark County School District (2001), noting that procedural violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP formulation process “undermine the very essence of the IDEA” (p. 892).
Make Good-Faith Efforts
Doug C. showed that when school districts fail to involve a student’s parents in the development of his or her IEP, the result will be a denial of FAPE and violation of the IDEA. Many other cases have reached similar conclusions (see Amanda J. v. Clark County School District, 2001; Deal v. Hamilton Board County Board of Education, 2004; W.G. v. Target Range School District, 1992; Winkleman v. Parma City School District, 2007). It is essential that every effort be made to coordinate with parents and guardians when scheduling the IEP meeting and developing a student’s IEP (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ennis, & Losinski, 2013). This includes making efforts to ensure that IEP meetings are scheduled at a mutually agreeable time and place, which can include holding meetings by conference calls or via the Internet. Yell et al. (2013) suggested that a method that may be used to document parental involvement is to assign a person to keep written notes at the IEP meeting. These notes should include parental contributions and the IEP team’s discussion of these contributions. At the end of the IEP meeting, these notes should be read and signed by the team members.
The only time that school-based IEP teams may proceed without a student’s parent present at the IEP meeting is when the parents have refused to attend. In such instances, it is important that school district personnel keep thorough records of all attempts to contact and involve the parents (e.g., phone calls, e-mails, registered mail, and home visits).
Do Not Go to IEP meetings With a Completed IEP
The process of developing a student’s special education services during the IEP meeting and determining his or her placement must be a collaborative process involving a student’s parents and school-based personnel. When school district personnel come to an IEP meeting with a student’s program and placement already determined, they are engaging in an illegal process termed predetermination (Yell, Thomas, & Katsiyannis, 2012). When school-based team members engage in predetermination, they essentially deny parents a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of their child’s program or placement, which of course is a clear violation of the IDEA. As the decision in Doug C. showed, trying to make up for failing to include a student’s parents in IEP development by involving them in subsequent IEP reviews will not remedy the legal error. It is important to note that school district personnel engage in preparatory activities when parents are not present as long as no final decisions are made. For example, team members may come to an IEP meeting with ideas regarding a student’s program and placement, even to the extent that they bring a draft IEP to a meeting. It is important, however, that school district personnel be open to parental input and that parental contributions be discussed even though a draft IEP has been written.
Services Do Not Lapse If the IEP Expires
In Doug C., the school district argued that it could not accommodate Doug C.’s request to reschedule the IEP meeting because of the impeding expiration of the IEP. The appellate court noted that the school district is not permitted to cease providing special education services just because an annual review is overdue. It is important that school districts adhere to timelines regarding IEP reviews; however, there is no authority in the IDEA for stopping special education services even when the date for the annual review has passed. When there is a conflict between two procedural requirements of the IDEA, as there was in Doug C. (i.e., holding the annual review and providing special education services), a school should determine which of the procedural requirements advances the primary purpose of the IDEA, which is to provide a FAPE to students with disabilities. In the Doug C. case, the court had no difficulty in arriving at the answer to the procedural dilemma of either including Doug C. in the IEP meeting or missing the IEP annual review deadline. The school district had denied Spencer a FAPE and violated the IDEA because it chose the wrong procedure to adhere to in deciding to hold the annual IEP review without Doug C.’s participation. In its opinion, the court noted that the school district’s decision to prioritize strict deadline compliance over parental participation was clearly not reasonable.
Conclusion
Parental participation has been consistently a high priority and a crucial component of the IDEA. Indeed, in 2004, Congress emphasized the need for “strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home” (20 U.S.C. § 1400[c][5][B]). This ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provides clarification on numerous IEP participation-related issues. Specifically, (a) failing to adhere to procedural matters, such as meeting strict review timelines, is secondary to the importance of securing parental participation in IEP development; (b) failing to meet timelines does not render the IEP obsolete, thus resulting in service lapse; (c) scheduling meetings and managing conflicts for staff are secondary to securing parental participation; and (d) holding a follow-up IEP meeting to address parental absence in the IEP development does not remedy a district’s decision to proceed with an IEP meeting without the parent, because parental participation is expected in the development of the IEP.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.